That's how brexit started...The kind of thing a party promises to shore up support among a specific group of people (older right-wingers) in order to minimise losses, but knows they won't have to follow through on.
That's how brexit started...The kind of thing a party promises to shore up support among a specific group of people (older right-wingers) in order to minimise losses, but knows they won't have to follow through on.
Well, not quite-- the government didn't promise us Brexit at the time. They scheduled a referendum and then the PM campaigned against leaving. And indeed those who organised that referendum didn't have to follow through with the outcome-- they resigned and left it to their successors.That's how brexit started...
Saw that before, but id he actually say conscription, or just that there needed to be preparations for a big war? This could include persuading people to become reservists, not forcing them into uniform.Yeah, been observing a noticeable increased trend in UK RW pundits, headlines and (still intensely, suspiciously partisan) YouTube news feed talking of desires to bring back compulsory national service ever since Israel decided to go all out on their genocidal colonial plans. Is not much work to figure out why.
even took a screenshot of one in January;
View attachment 11240
Army chief says people of UK are ‘prewar generation’ who must be ready to fight Russia
Ministry of Defence clarifies it has no plans for conscription after Gen Sir Patrick Sanders says UK should take steps to place society on war footingwww.theguardian.com
The aim of national service as proposed is not for conscripts to actually fight anyone.Also shame on the old people who will vote for their kids, and younger generations to be conscripted, even Reddit thinks if many American Gen Zs were conscripted they would start shooting their commanding officers which isn't that far from reality.
Don't forget that it's also to help reduce crime. So they force people to learn how to kill...The aim of national service as proposed is not for conscripts to actually fight anyone.
It's an appeal to the notion that the youth of today are soft, undisciplined, lazy, unfit, irresponsible crybabies who need a sharp kick up the backside and learn what it is to be a real adult. So, force them to spend a year being bawled at by drill sergeants, do marches and assault courses, clean their barracks and shine their shoes, etc. and magically we will have made them better people. The fact that this is designed to appeal to people who haven't done any of that shit either, and who can take some responsibility as the preceding generations who brought the current one up, is even more contemptible.
My mother was in favour of national service, but that it should encompass working in hospitals, aged care facilities, prisons, drug rehab, child care, public maintenance, sanitation, schools, mental health facilities, local government, farming, fishing and yes, military service if they so wished. With the proviso that anyone who did complete national service in the armed forces were not listed as reservists and that their only call up would be times of declared war (the proper kind like Ukraine) or humanitarian aid.The aim of national service as proposed is not for conscripts to actually fight anyone.
It's an appeal to the notion that the youth of today are soft, undisciplined, lazy, unfit, irresponsible crybabies who need a sharp kick up the backside and learn what it is to be a real adult. So, force them to spend a year being bawled at by drill sergeants, do marches and assault courses, clean their barracks and shine their shoes, etc. and magically we will have made them better people. The fact that this is designed to appeal to people who haven't done any of that shit either, and who can take some responsibility as the preceding generations who brought the current one up, is even more contemptible.
Sure. But who's paying for that? And who's going to have to give up their job because it's been filled by someone on national service? And who's making sure that the people on national service actually benefit from it?My mother was in favour of national service, but that it should encompass working in hospitals, aged care facilities, prisons, drug rehab, child care, public maintenance, sanitation, schools, mental health facilities, local government, farming, fishing and yes, military service if they so wished.
I have no idea; my mother has many talents but I’m sorry to say that the formulation and end to end detailing of potential public policy is not one of them. Although it could be argued emotively that given the shortfall of staff in many of those industries - especially aged care - then there’s probably money on the table as yet unclaimed.Sure. But who's paying for that? And who's going to have to give up their job because it's been filled by someone on national service? And who's making sure that the people on national service actually benefit from it?
Many of those industries also require extensive- and expensive- training. Who's paying for that, too?Although it could be argued emotively that given the shortfall of staff in many of those industries - especially aged care - then there’s probably money on the table as yet unclaimed.
We are. Although currently we’re paying for it in service shortfalls, staff burnout and loss of dignity in many cases. Sometimes we even pay for it in deaths.Many of those industries also require extensive- and expensive- training. Who's paying for that, too?
When i was young we had that (as alternative to military service). It had its benefits, but also limits. The people on service generally lacked special education so they often were not actually tasked with important interactions with patients when possible and more with whatever menial tasks existed beside that. Cleaning, errants ...My mother was in favour of national service, but that it should encompass working in hospitals, aged care facilities, prisons, drug rehab, child care, public maintenance, sanitation, schools, mental health facilities, local government, farming, fishing and yes, military service if they so wished. With the proviso that anyone who did complete national service in the armed forces were not listed as reservists and that their only call up would be times of declared war (the proper kind like Ukraine) or humanitarian aid.
I'm not having a go at your mother here, but how the idea of national service has spiralled out of control.I will not claim that this idea my mother laid out to me once over a decade ago is at all plausible. But I agree with her in the sense that if a government is hellbent on national service coming back, it should include things that aren’t military service. Because that is not the only way a person can provide value to their society.
The triple lock really is one of the biggest drag on the UK government, especially with the number of elderly constantly increasing, but last time someone tried to even look at something that might require the wealthy elderly to pay their fare share was May just before she blew up a massive majority. Nobody will ever do anything about this, they'll sacrifice literally everything else before touching elderly benefit.Hot take given I and many others won't live enough to enjoy them I am starting to think pensions/social security for elderly people who can work but choose not to is a bad idea. This is what it leads to. Wealthy people don't need it, and able body people don't need it.
I didn't think you were. Its just everyone really drills down on National Service being military service, and I think it should be expanded beyond that, again if they're hellbent on doing it. But we circle back around to the unavoidable fact that if it ever passed, there's going to be at least three generations worth of people who are going to resent it and everyone who voted them into when they were powerless to have their own voices on the matter heard.I'm not having a go at your mother here, but how the idea of national service has spiralled out of control.
When we redefine national service in such loose terms in so many different types of work, what we're really saying is "We want all 18-year-olds to have a job for a year". Well, okay, but that's kind of what the conventional job market is for. If a country can't hire enough care home workers or whatever, the answers are a) immigration or b) wage increases for that profession.
The triple lock served an important function: state pensions in the UK were awful compared to other developed countries, leaving many of the elderly in serious poverty. It guaranteed that this situation would improve. There is a defence of it that the UK is still only around the average of developed countries (slightly higher, in fact). However, given the pressure on the public purse, I think a tough but pragmatic decision is that it needs to end. But as you note, that's extremely unlikely to be done by the party that is wildly dependent on the vote of pensioners.The triple lock really is one of the biggest drag on the UK government, especially with the number of elderly constantly increasing, but last time someone tried to even look at something that might require the wealthy elderly to pay their fare share was May just before she blew up a massive majority. Nobody will ever do anything about this, they'll sacrifice literally everything else before touching elderly benefit.